beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiffs (Seoul Eastern District Court 200 tea1741), and the above court issued a payment order as applied by the defendant on February 25, 2000.
Defendant:
A. The plaintiff A pays 20% interest per annum for KRW 135,745,600 and KRW 30 million from January 20, 200 for KRW 105,745,600 from February 25, 200 to the day of full payment; and
B. Plaintiff B, (1) jointly and severally with Plaintiff A, shall pay the amount of KRW 105,745,600 out of the above KRW 135,745,600 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from February 25, 2000 to the date of full payment, (2) as to KRW 12 million, and as to KRW 7 million, the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 13, 2000 to the date of full payment, and as to KRW 5 million, from January 5, 200 to the date of full payment.
B. Since then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the extension of the statute of limitations for the claim based on the above payment order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2010Kahap3450), the above court rendered a judgment of non-citing the Defendant’s claim as follows on May 7, 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 4, 2010.
(hereinafter “The final judgment of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs asserted not only did they have borrowed money from the defendant, but also did not know about the defendant at all.
However, the plaintiffs borrowed business funds from the non-party D presumed to be the defendant's relative and repaid them in full, and in relation to this, D filed a complaint with the plaintiff Eul on the charge of fraud on March 2000, but it was confirmed that the plaintiffs paid the full amount of the borrowed money and received a disposition of no suspicion.
As such, the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiffs are nonexistent, so this case against the defendant's plaintiffs.